In defence of cold-contact evangelism

I was listening to the podcast at the Blazing Centre blog which included a snippet asking the question 'is cold-contact evangelism a good idea?' (the segment begins at 27:45). I could empathise with the general conflict the contributors were having. All seemed to agree that, on the one hand, folk who engage in cold-contact evangelism are actually out there doing something. On the other hand, nobody wants to be that person who, without so much as a how do you do, presses random strangers into answering the question 'if you die tonight, where will you spend eternity?'

Nonetheless, I was left a little cold by the discussion. There were lots of caveats about how the Lord can use any method if it is done prayerfully and with good intentions, how those doing cold-contact evangelism were trying to be faithful and how we should be slow to criticise methodology. Yet, the overall thrust of the conversation seemed to be that cold-contact evangelism was generally ineffective and, frankly, a bit weird. Excepting a few gifted individuals - and even then this was generally in response to questions and interactions in cafes and shops - all the contributors were skeptical.

I was especially disappointed at the closing comments of the segment. A dim view was taken of those who say 'if we don't go and tell people the gospel, who will?' The contributors argued such comments smack of arrogance and a sense in which gospel success depends upon us. Whilst none of us should be arrogant, and of course we must rely on the Lord going before us, it strikes me the 'if we don't, who will' line is precisely the argument of Rom 10:14f. Though it is a work of the Lord, He has appointed the means by which people will hear and graciously includes us in his work of salvation. The context in which the contributors made these comments sounded like the argument of hyper-calvinism and those seeking excuses to avoid evangelism altogether.

Church attendance figures for the UK suggest only 6% of the population attend church regularly. When one considers that not every church included in that 6% will be gospel-centred or bible-believing, we are left with an even lower number of people hearing the gospel inside church buildings. At best, we must conclude that 94% of the population are not coming into church with any regularity nor sitting under the sound of the gospel in church meetings. Inside our own buildings, we are primarily preaching to the converted. Most Christians agree, if we are going reach the world with the gospel, we must go to where the people are and it is evident they are not in church.

There are a variety of ways for us to reach people. We can put on events and services to try and attract people into the church. Though this is becoming increasingly difficult, and it is often hard for the church to attract people with things the world can usually offer without the gospel input, there are still those can be attracted to what the church can offer. It is also worth remembering that godly, gospel-centred community - our love for one another and our unity with one another - are specifically things scripture says will attract the world. Alternatively, we can begin to join clubs and societies in order to build friendships with those we meet. Over shared passions and interests, we can build bridges and share our faith in natural ways with those we meet.

All those things are great and each have a place in the mission of the church. But, if we limit ourselves to these things we essentially only reach those prepared to come into a church (which is, nowadays, very few) or those people like us who share our interests or with whom we are already friends. We are still left asking who will reach the people Romans 10 talks about? Paul isn't talking about those with whom we're friends or those we are in contact with already, he asks who will go to those who have nobody to tell them the gospel? In modern UK society, with only 6% of people coming into any sort of church regularly, most people reside in this Romans 10 bracket.

It strikes me that cold-contact evangelism is one of few ways we can meaningfully reach these people. I do not mean accosting people in the street apropos of nothing, I mean pointed and intentional evangelistic activity taking place outside of our church buildings. That may be open airs, doing questionnaires, distributing evangelistic leaflets or any number of things. Whatever it is, it will involve an intentional desire to share the gospel with those who would not otherwise come into church and with whom we would not otherwise come into contact. That is what I mean by cold-contact evangelism.

There are, no doubt, good and bad ways to do cold-contact evangelism. But asking people in town to do a questionnaire on their beliefs or their understanding of the Christian faith doesn't strike me as any more weird than market researchers or charity fundraisers doing the same. Equally, an open air speaker is no more intrusive and odd than any other street act in a city centre. It is no more unnatural to offer a tract to someone who has listened to part of an open air than it is to offer them a leaflet explaining more about some goods they just looked at in the shop window.

Again, nobody wants to be obnoxious or arrogant. Most people want to avoid becoming a weirdo wearing a sandwich board proclaiming judgment and shouting at people through a loud-hailer. Very few people want to be so crass as to accost people with questions that are not particularly pertinent in the most unnatural way. Even the majority of Christians, who probably think about these things more than most, do not spend every waking moment thinking about where they will spend eternity when they die. To expect a stranger to meaningfully engage with that question as they are caught on the hoof is unlikely to bring them into a relationship with Christ. But, of course, when we talk about cold-contact evangelism these are really not the things we are talking about.

I think the question of how we will reach those people with whom we wouldn't ordinarily have any contact is one of the most pressing for churches today. Folk are simply not walking into church buildings with any regularity anymore. Christians - like everybody else - have always engaged their passions and interests and shared their faith with whomever asks them about it. So the people in church, and the people in our clubs and societies, are the people we have always been reaching on some level. The question remains: how will we reach those we don't know? 

I think cold-contact evangelism - that is meeting and talking to people whom we wouldn't ordinarily engage with the specific intention of sharing the gospel with them - is a means we can credibly do this. The burden of proof is on those who wish to reject cold-contact evangelism to provide a credible alternative for reaching people we wouldn't otherwise meet. Organisations such as United Beach Missions, Open Air Mission, Campus Crusade for Christ and others would all speak against the idea that cold-contact evangelism is ineffective. Even if we wish to argue that some of these missions are not 'cold-contact' per se, seeking to establish relationships for gospel work, they nonetheless aim meet people we wouldn't ordinarily meet with the expressed purpose of sharing the gospel with them. It is at least 'cold-contact' during the time we are beginning to establish relationships and we are building those bridges with a clear sense that we are Christian workers sharing our faith.

It is often the case that we are too timorous with the gospel and we hide behind an ethereal sense of what is, or is not, culturally appropriate in order to shy away from the great commission. We must ask ourselves honestly, are we really avoiding cold-contact evangelism because it's ineffective or is it because we're too scared to engage people with their need of Christ? The evidence points to cold-contact evangelism - as with every form of evangelism - being effective when it is done well and with the right people. If the method is effective in winning souls for Christ - the great awakening, the work of C.H. Spurgeon, the work of Billy Graham, multiple mission organisations and my own personal experience of open air evangelism all suggest that it is - we must have a really solid reason to say we're not going to do it. 

To be honest, 'it might come across weird' may not cut it.

God's power made perfect in weakness (even in this small way)

It is Easter Monday. The last day of the Easter period (mainly noted here because Easter Sunday is a bank holiday and so it stands in lieu of a proper day off for most people). And me and my family have been sick the whole way through!

I preached on Maundy Thursday evening (on Jesus' comments about washing from John 13) and Good Friday (on the three crosses and respective responses of two criminals either side of Jesus). If you are interested, you can listen back to those here and here. 

I had planned to speak on Easter Sunday about Matthew's account of three very different responses to the resurrection event. Sadly, having croaked my way through Good Friday (I edited out the coughing fits for the online upload) it all proved too much and a contingency speaker was drafted in last minute on Sunday morning (who I am told did a stellar job). Instead of sitting under some uplifting ministry on the resurrection of Christ, I had the joy of sitting in a medical walk-in centre - wife and son in tow - to find out whether we had an infection that required antibiotics or just a horrible virus that we had to wait out (for those that care, it was the latter - which really stinks because not only is it hanging around but there is nothing we can adequately medicate with either!)

But here is what encouraged me. I felt totally sick and ill, had to help look after my family who felt much the same, and had no hope of preaching Sunday morning (that's not the encouraging bit). I also know the gentleman who stepped into the breach to cover the preaching was not looking forward to delivering an off-the-cuff word or having to deliver my poorly planned, inadequate notes that he wouldn't get sight of until about 10 minutes before the service started (his servant heart and willingness to do so is more encouraging but that's not quite it either). What was so encouraging is that despite every reason for everything to fall apart, the church was full, the service went ahead and the word was well received.

Often what we plan to be great isn't as great as we might hope. Other times, what doesn't go to plan at all and ought to be a disaster is no such thing. I am reminded time and again of Christ's words to the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:9 “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” You don't get much weaker than a preacher that physically can't deliver the sermon and a stand-in working from notes he has neither seen nor prepared!

And what more appropriate day than Easter Sunday for such things to happen. What looked like a disaster to the disciples on Good Friday, the death of their Lord on a shameful Roman cross, proved at Easter Sunday to be the plan of salvation God had ordained before the foundation of the world. What would have never been the plan of you and me was the appointed means by which God brought salvation to the world. What, by rights, should have been a total disaster and the end of the Jesus cult was God's greatest glory and the beginning of his 2000 year old church.

All that is to say, what may appear disastrous and seem destined to failure may be the very means by which God brings glory to himself. Whether that is in the small (or slightly bigger) parts of a church service or in the huge, grand sweep of salvation-history, God chooses the weak things by which to glorify himself. He chooses not to conform to human convention and wisdom. He chooses a virus to knock-out a church pastor and stop him preaching the word in order to glorify himself through another man taking his place and doing a far better job because he is almost certainly relying on the Lord in a way this pastor probably wasn't going to because his "power is made perfect in weakness".

Free speech means nothing without the right to offend

The latest edition of Evangelicals Now carries an article which asks the question should free speech include the right to intentionally offend? Disappointingly, the author seems to conclude that it should not. He states "Freedom of speech should not mean freedom to say anything. Cartoons that diminish people by ridiculing their faith come into the category of journalistic jihadi and are on a par with hate speech."

Almost everybody agrees there should be some boundaries to free speech. The vast majority of people accept slander and liable to be legitimate limits. Most agree that it is not acceptable to spout, or print, lies about others. Many, though not all, believe words that are liable to incite violence should not sit within the bounds of free speech. Others are quite happy to disallow anything termed "hate speech", which includes anti-religious sentiments and racially motivated comments among other things. We are now moving toward a situation where some even consider offensive language to be unacceptable.

The problem with "hate speech" or "offensive language" is that such terms are so nebulous and subjective that the range of things disallowed is enormous. The world is full of people waiting to be offended or deem words hateful. In recent years, there have been multiple stories of police action against street preachers, protesters and political activists on such grounds. When anti-terror legislation - intended to suppress acts of violence against the country - is used to eject elderly gentlemen who object to party speeches (see here) we have undoubtedly pressed the limits of free speech too far.

I am wholly for liable and slander legislation. Indeed, these are civil laws that do not tend to lead to imprisonment but damages and reparation (and rightly so). Though I have some sympathy with the thought behind legislation that prohibits incitement to violence, I am not so sure this should be considered a legal offence (see here). I am absolutely sure that neither "hate speech" nor offensive language should be considered illegal (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

The line between "hate speech" and "offensive language" is not clear cut. It is most certainly offensive to spout racist insults in the street. In fact, we may call this hateful. There is nothing good, endearing or acceptable about it. Yet, offensive as such repugnant views may be banning their very utterance won't change the attitudes of those who express them. If such views turn into harassment, assault or worse we have laws to address such behaviour that cover all people regardless of gender, creed, colour or sexuality. I don't care if somebody assaults me because of something about my person to which they take exception. I simply care that they assaulted me and I want them treated as anybody else who may have assaulted anybody else for any other reason.

We may find Charlie Hebdo unnecessarily inflammatory and offensive. If that is the case, the answer is not to ban it but not to buy it. Offence over what they print is no reason to ban them from printing it. Free speech should include the right to intentionally offend. In fact, free speech means nothing without the right to offend. Christians are well aware that the gospel is a cause of offence (cf. Rom 9:33; 1 Cor. 1:23; 1 Pet 2:8) and yet we rightly continue to preach it regardless. If we demand the right to offend through the preaching of the gospel (as well we ought), we must accept that others should also have the right to offend us. 

How do you sell God in the 21st Century? More Heaven; less Hell

I came across this article in today's Guardian online. The piece recounts a conservative Evangelical journey away from their faith. It outlines the story of somebody growing up in an Evangelical baptist family, going to Moody Bible Institute (a conservative, Evangelical seminary), engaged in evangelism and yet becoming increasingly disaffected with theodicy and theology of Hell. In many ways, it is a common story of an Evangelical unable to square what they see in scripture, the apologetic arguments and theology they are taught and their own internal sense of what is just, fair, moral and right. Though lengthy, the article is certainly worth reading.

Nevertheless, the article's emphasis isn't really autobiographical. The writer isn't ultimately trying to share how they became disaffected with Evangelicalism (though they do share that and do so - in my view - in a way that still exhibits fondness for Evangelicals if not for Evangelicalism nor Evangelical theology.) Rather, the writer is trying to address why the perception of Hell - and certainly the formulation of the doctrine of Hell at a popular level - has changed over time.

The article contends that 30 years ago - whilst the writer was growing up in Evangelical baptist circles - Hell was taught in, what would now be considered, an anachronistic way. It was all fire and brimstone, eternal torment and attempts to scare folk into Heaven. It notes a shift in emphasis, focusing on the preaching and writing of Bill Hybels, toward less of a focus on Hell itself. Certainly when Hell was mentioned, it was brought into focus by empathetic appeals to sin and evil existing in all people. The writer then considers how this has changed again, focusing on the writing of Rob Bell. It argues Hell is now either (a) something to be experienced here on Earth; or, (b) a purgatorial refinement leading to ultimate, universal reconciliation and the end of Hell itself.

The article misses the mark in various respects. Principally, it argues the way to avoid Hell, according to protestant Evangelical theology, is to say the sinner's prayer. It states "For contemporary evangelicals, it’s solely this act that separates the sheep from the goats." Though there are undoubtedly people who hold this view, most at a personal level, it is not mainstream Evangelical belief. 

Paul Washer, a well-known conservative Evangelical couldn't be clearer when he states "We call men to repent and believe. And if they repent and believe, truly in that moment they are saved in that moment. But the evidence is more than just the sincerity of a prayer. It is a continuation of the working of God in their life through sanctification." He has also argued "We have taken that truth [that if you truly believe and you confess Christ, even if it costs you your life, you will be saved]… we have taken that beautiful truth and reduced it down to, “If you pray a little prayer before a bunch of people in a church in America, you can be guaranteed you were saved if you think you were sincere.”"

Denny Burk - Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College (Southern Baptist seminary) and associate pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church - has published this comment by David Platt - president of the International Missions Board, the mission agency of the Southern Baptists (a conservative Evangelical denomination). Platt states:

Do I believe it is “wrong” for someone to pray a “prayer of salvation”? Certainly not. Calling out to God in prayer with repentant faith is fundamental to being saved (Romans 10:9-10). Yet as I pastor a local church and serve alongside pastors of other local churches, I sense reasonably serious concern about the relatively large number of baptisms in our churches that are “re-baptisms”—often representing people who thought they were saved because they prayed a certain prayer, but they lacked a biblical understanding of salvation and were in reality not saved. This, in addition to a rampant easy believism that marks cultural Christianity in our context (and in other parts of the world), leads me to urge us, as we go to all people among all nations with the good news of God’s love, to be both evangelistically zealous and biblically clear at the same time (Matthew 28:18-20).

Plenty of other conservative Evangelicals can be found stating categorically that nobody is saved simply because they prayed a "sinner's prayer". Though a prayer of repentance may be an outward expression of the repentance that has already taken place in the heart of a believer, it is this ongoing state of repentance and trust in Christ's atoning work that saves.

However, the article is helpful in pinpointing where the boundaries of belief lie. It quite rightly sees the arguments advanced by Rob Bell as demonstrating "the potential pitfalls of the church’s desire to distance itself too quickly from fire and brimstone." As the writer comments:

Bell claims to address the exact theological problem that motivated me to leave the faith, but rather than offer a new understanding of the doctrine, he offers up a Disneyesque vision of humanity, one that is wholly incompatible with the language biblical authors use to speak about good and evil. Along with hell, the new evangelical leaders threaten to jettison the very notion of human depravity – a fundamental Christian truth upon which the entire salvation narrative hinges.

The issues for the writer were plain enough. The Bible teaches the doctrine of Hell. An internal sense of that which is just and merciful couldn't accept the doctrine of Hell. One either accepts the teaching of the Bible or rejects it. Bell's attempts at "disneyfying" the doctrine seemed too hollow and shallow for credible belief.

What the article helpfully states in the clearest terms is the following:

what made church such a powerful experience for me as a child and a young adult was that it was the one place where my own faults and failings were recognised and accepted, where people referred to themselves affectionately as “sinners”, where it was taken as a given that the person standing in the pews beside you was morally fallible, but still you held hands and lifted your voice with hers as you worshipped in song. This camaraderie came from a collective understanding of evil – a belief that each person harboured within them a potential for sin and deserved, despite it, divine grace. It’s this notion of shared fallibility that lent Hybels’s 9/11 sermon its power, as he suggested that his own longing for revenge was only a difference of degree – not of kind – from the acts of the terrorists.

Without a clear and defined understanding of the doctrine of Hell the message of the gospel is liable to be lost. No amount of rebranding is going to help. For a reformulation of the doctrine of Hell means the gospel, the message of salvation in Christ, ultimately loses its power. No Hell soon leads to a watered down, or non-existent, statement of sin. No sin means no need of salvation. No need of salvation means no need of Christ. No need of Christ makes Jesus a pitiable character indeed.

Efforts to rebrand Hell, or to push it to the sidelines, are misguided at best. That is not to say our preaching must be fire and brimstone every week. Nor is it to say Hell must be the centre of all our gospel presentations. It is to say, that to pretend it doesn't exist or to speak of it in such ways as it seems little more than trifling irritant - like a small wart on God's created order - is to undermine the gospel.

A right view of sin - to see it as God sees it - lends credence to the existence of Hell. To do anything other than present Hell as scripture presents it damages our understanding of sin, salvation and the work of Christ. Whatever else the article made clear, it is apparent that changes to the doctrine of Hell were ultimately unconvincing and - despite the title of the piece - more Heaven and less Hell doesn't do much to win anybody. If anything, it undermines the achievement of Jesus on the cross and the reality of our standing before a holy God.

Tony Miano arrested for 'hate' speech - full video and police transcript

Yesterday, I posted a link regarding the recent arrest of Tony Miano - an American street evangelist preaching outside Wimbledon.

Since then, a full video of the incident and police transcripts of the subsequent interview have been made available. These have been published on the Cranmer blog. Calvin Smith has responded to the story and posted his reaction here.

Having read the transcript and viewed the video, it appears Mr Miano doesn't do himself any favours on occasion. The officer admitted and exhibited theological illiteracy several times yet Mr Miano continued to explain sin in such a way that the officer misunderstood Miano's view. Nothing he said thereafter did anything to divest the officer of this misconception. Only once did he identify himself as 'a sinner', though not really with clarity. This can't have helped the officer move from his view that 'sinners' are bad people for doing x, y and z whilst the preacher is not such a one. Similarly, it took some pointed questions from his legal counsel to even come close to drawing out the points that (a) he was not intending to offend anybody and; (b) he was not intending to convey the idea that he is good whilst everyone else is sinful (though, as I mentioned, even this was not spoken of with clarity).

Similarly, Cranmer rightly points out that Mr Miano's own version of events are not entirely borne out by the police transcript. He notes '[Mr Miano] specifically stated that the police asked him if he would be prepared to feed a hungry homosexual (corroborated in Christian Concern's press release). This transcript establishes that these words were, in fact, Mr Miano's own; not those of the interrogating police officer. This sort of misinformation or exaggeration really doesn't aid a person's credibility'. Although these were specifically Mr Miano's words, they were a specific example used in direct response to the officer's question 'if someone you knew as a homosexual came up to you and asked you for a favor [sic], you'd quite happily offer them that favor [sic] would you?'.

Nevertheless, Calvin Smith is apt to comment: 'Whatever your view of street preaching, or the style or approach of this particular preacher... we have indeed reached a sinister stage in our country where a single individual who is "offended" can result in the arrest, fingerprinting, DNA sampling and interrogation of another individual'.

Two separate and independent thoughts on freedom in Britain

Here are two interesting posts on freedom in Britain:

The first, from Andy's Study, discusses the ongoing Edward Snowden saga and how the British  government seem equally intent on prolific data collection.

The second, from Cranmer, discusses the recent arrest of Tony Miano - an American street evangelist arrested outside Wimbledon. Whatever one feels about Mr Miano's view, such treatment seems heavy-handed to say the least. At least Section 5 of the Public order Act will be reformed (see here).

Anyway, two interesting posts worth some reflection, wherever such reflections may lead.

Edit: Full video and Police transcripts of the Tony Miano arrest have now been made available and can be viewed here.

Preaching and applying narrative

Graham Goldsworthy, in Gospel and Kingdom, rightly warned away from mining the narratives of scripture for moral lessons. Nevertheless, on this approach, how do we eschew moralistic lessons whilst simultaneously avoiding repetitive statements of the grand theological themes of passage and paying little attention to the details of character and plot?

Thankfully, help is at hand! The Proclaimer blog has offered two helpful suggestions for tackling this thorny issue:

Preaching God and Example

and

Christ our representative and the shape of evangelical preaching

Good reading for anybody trying to apply the Old Testament narrative to modern day congregations.

Good ways to do a word study

ScibblePreach.com, having previously offered '7 ways to do a bad word study', has posted '7 ways to do a good word study'.

Again, I encourage you to read the article. It offers several simple steps we may want to take when tackling a word study, making the seven following suggestions:

1. Identify "spark" words
2. Know the lexical range
3. Study the immediate context
4. Study the authorial context
5. Study the wider context
6. Identify defining passages
7. Choose what fits in context

If you want to know how to conduct a helpful word study this short post is definitely worth reading.

Bad ways to do a word study

The Challies blog, via ScibblePreach.com, courtesy of Dr Mark Jennings (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) and Dr Grant Osborne (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) has posted '7 ways to do a bad word study'. 

I really encourage you to read the article. It offers a helpful critique and highlights how lay people, as well as ministers, can know if a word study really is legitimate. It tackles the seven following poor approaches:

1. The Root Word Fallacy
2. The Origin Fallacy
3. The 'Everything' Fallacy
4. The Lexical Fallacy
5. The Word-Argument Fallacy
6. The 'Authorless' Fallacy
7. The 'Webster's Dictionary' Fallacy

If you want to know which approaches to avoid when leading a bible study, or you simply want to recognise appropriate use of word studies, this post really is worth a read.

Pastors and Teachers or Pastor-Teachers?

Paul, in discussing the gifts that God gives the church, tells us in Ephesians 4:11-12 'And truly He gave some to be apostles, and some to be prophets, and some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers (MKJV)'. There is little debate regarding the first three gifts, each representing a distinct role. However, there is a question over whether "pastors and teachers" denotes one spiritual gift or two.

Those who ascribe "pastors and teachers" as one gift tend to argue δὲ is repeated before each individual gift yet this article appears only once before the last two nouns. Grammatically, this signals a change and suggests "pastor and teachers" is a unit distinct from the preceding series. However, the discussion does not revolve around this grammatical rule, over which there can be no debate, but the nature of this distinct unit.

Bill Mounce argues:

The use of a single article with multiple plural nouns indicates a single unit, but it does not necessarily mean the two nouns are identical. This same construction occurs earlier in 2:20 and joins “apostles” and “prophets,” but these are not identical gifts.

Hoehner suggests that the distinction is that the prior gifts are expressed in an itinerate ministry and the later two are gifts for a local ministry. Harold’s discussion of this is excellent and worth reading (Ephesians. An Exegetical Commentary published by Baker).

Hoehner goes on to quote Wallace’s argument that the grammar suggests that the first (“pastors”) is a subset of the second (“teachers”). Everyone who is gifted to shepherd a local flock of believers is gifted to teach, but the gift of teaching does not necessarily mean the person is gifted to shepherd (e.g., administration, exhortation).

This leads us to the view that “pastor” and “teacher” are somewhat distinct gifts. Whilst all pastors must be able to teach (cf. 1 Timothy 3:2), not all teachers are gifted to pastor. Mounce comments:

God has gifted some people to do everything. These are the wonderful pastors who have a small enough church that they can care for everybody and everything. I have a friend who does this. He loves smaller churches. He pastors them for about ten years, takes a sabbatical, and then looks for another small church to love and care for. He is just now headed for his third church as their pastor. And he will pastor them, and that by definition includes the calling to teach them. Ultimately churches are to be led by their teachers, which is why every pastor and elder must of necessity be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2). 

But there are other people who are gifted to teach. They may not have great administrative gifts, and may not be very good and sitting down with someone and listening to their issues. But they still love their God and their people just as fervently, and they show that love by spending a vast number of hours in preparing their sermons.

The interpretation of "pastors and teachers" as one gift often leads to the view that preaching and pastoral ministry amount to the same thing. On this view, church members with complex pastoral needs are often left high and dry as preaching alone is considered the remedy for all ills. Alternatively, this view can lead to a culture in which the preacher is expected to do everything - even handling complex pastoral matters outside his area of gifting - in direct conflict with both Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. In the worst cases, it can lead to ministry appointments based solely on teaching ability by churches expecting a pastoral worker despite failing to seek any evidence of such ability. As a result, preaching is viewed as the the solution to all pastoral matters because the minister is uncomfortable doing anything else and the congregation insists on a pastoral element to his role despite appointing him based on his teaching gift alone. 

Church ministers with both teaching and pastoral gifting are a rarity indeed! However, this should come as no surprise if we understand Ephesians 4:11 as denoting two distinct gifts. Moreover, Bill Mounce's comment, to which I would subscribe - everyone who is gifted to shepherd a local flock should also be gifted to teach but not everyone who is gifted to teach is necessarily gifted to shepherd a local flock - should lead us to conclude that we are more likely to find gifted teachers than gifted pastors within our congregations. 

Therefore, as title would suggest, we should be seeking to appoint pastors based predominantly on their pastoral gifting, as opposed to their teaching ability. Of course, as expressly stated in 1 Timothy 3:2, pastors must be able to teach; however, this is not the overriding qualification to the detriment of all else. For how is the full-time ministers time predominantly spent if not dealing with pastoral issues? Preaching is but a part, though a nonetheless important one, of the wider role. Indeed, it is possible to have continued sound ministry from lay members or itinerate speakers but pastoral ministry cannot be outsourced. Yet how often are pastors appointed based on pastoral ability over and above their teaching gift?

Perhaps a plurality of elders is required to meet this need as every elder must be able to teach. If we have elders who are able to teach, and this is a scriptural criteria for eldership, to appoint a full-time minister predominantly for his teaching ability - though, of course, he should have such a gift - seems rather to miss the point. Instead, although able to teach, we should be appointing full-time ministers on the basis of their pastoral gifting in the knowledge that we have other elders who, by definition of the role, can teach. Perhaps it is because preaching is viewed as the summum bonum, though that is not to say it is unimportant, that we have emphasised it in such a way that our churches may be full of people 'able to teach', with fewer who are able to pastor and even less who can do both.

Debunking error or preaching truth?

It is not uncommon to hear preachers highlight a variety of scriptural interpretations and doctrinal statements that, over the course of half an hour or so, are duly debunked ending in the assertion of the supposed correct view. Is this the most helpful approach to biblical teaching? Of course, it is eminently right and proper that correct doctrine based on biblical truth is taught and restated in our churches; nevertheless, the preacher can seek to do this in one of two ways. Either biblical truth can be taught exclusively, without reference to other errant views and interpretations, on the basis that knowledge of truth allows us to recognise anything that is not truth itself. Alternatively, particular errors can be highlighted, demonstrated errant and correct biblical truth taught to steer people directly away from specific errors and clearly towards biblical truth simultaneously.


It is possible to argue that, of these two approaches, the first is the better. By teaching biblical truth exclusively the preacher must make a sound interpretation, backing up each statement he makes with clear verses from the text and can apply his interpretation directly to the people to whom he is speaking. In order to fill a half hour sermon he must state the correct interpretation of scripture, show how he arrived at such an interpretation, illustrate his points clearly and make his points applicable to the people listening rooting all of this in the text. Where the preacher is faithfully doing this he can rest assured that in teaching what is true people will themselves be able to determine that which is false if they so encounter it.


The second approach, however, brings with it a number of difficulties. Firstly, nothing is added to the listener's understanding of scripture by teaching what the passage does not mean. The aim of teaching should be to aid understand of the meaning of scripture. When we spend time explaining why particular views are errant we are ultimately telling people something they do not need to know. Instead, we should teach primarily what the Bible does mean and in so doing we teach people what they actively need to know as opposed to the endless list of things they do not.


Secondly, the more views we raise in a sermon the greater the possibility of causing confusion. We may offer an expert explanation of why each interpretation, apart from our own, is errant but for many this will come across as just one view amongst a sea of others. The greater number of views we introduce the more this seems to be the case. Moreover, the list of things a passage of scripture is not saying is infinite and we could spend a lifetime explaining what a passage does not mean without ever getting to the point. Far better to spend time simply explaining biblical truth exclusively rather than concerning ourselves with the infinite number of things the passage does not teach.


Thirdly, by highlighting specific false teaching we may bring particular errors to the attention of people who otherwise would not have encountered them. In doing this, the best we can hope for is that those listening will recognise the errant teaching for what it is. More likely, however, we may cause some to investigate the error we highlighted further and, in doing so, may lead some to be swayed by compelling arguments that far exceed the intellectual plane on which our own preaching functions. Furthermore, we may add to this problem ourselves by, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresenting the exact nature of the error we are trying to steer away from. Those that quite legitimately investigate these matters further may see such misrepresentations as unfair criticism and become more inclined towards the error we were trying to direct against because we have unfaithfully represented them. Moreover, where we disagree with an interpretation it is extremely difficult to avoid making straw-man arguments. When we do this we unfaithfully represent views in order to knock them down. This can lead many to see our own interpretation as weak as we can only defend it against the straw-men we put up ourselves. Where we stick to proclaiming biblical truth exclusively, without reference to error, we avoid such accusations.


Fourthly, highlighting numerous errant interpretations can be a means by which some seek to avoid illustrating and applying biblical truth. Instead of seeking to teach biblical truths from the text, illustrate these points and apply them clearly some preachers spend more time stating various errant views and the reasons why they are false. If one highlights only two errant interpretations alongside the supposed correct one - giving a statement of why each is errant and the correct one is true - there is little time left in a sermon for any illustration or real points of application. In reality, this can either be a means of masking an otherwise weak sermon or an attempt to avoid the more difficult aspects of sermon preparation.


Therefore, when we come to a passage we should seek to teach what it states exclusively. We should avoid explaining what the passage does not mean and should avoid highlighting false doctrines and errant interpretations. By faithfully teaching biblical truth exclusively we equip the listener with everything they need to avoid false doctrines and errant interpretations. Where we begin to concern ourselves with tackling such particulars we open ourselves up to a whole host of difficulties that are best avoided by simply teaching the truth of the Bible exclusively.

Intellectual preaching or preaching intellectualism?

--> Often, when one seeks to understand a portion of Scripture, a whole host of views and interpretations claim to have the definitive understanding of the passage. It is the task of the preacher to discern which view fits with a proper understanding of the rest of Scripture. Sometimes this choice boils down to taking an interpretation that fits in with the rest of Scripture or taking a view that seems utterly incongruous with it. For example, consider the miracles of Jesus.


We can either ascribe Jesus' miracles as real, supernatural acts or; alternatively, as nothing more than natural phenomenon. The first of these two options harmonises with our understanding of who Jesus is, harmonises with the rest of Scripture and offers the most natural reading of these passages. The alternative view requires an unnatural reading of Scripture, lengthy explanations of the purpose of these miracles and a logic that would make any text meaningless. In these cases, it is not difficult to discern that the natural reading of the passage is the one that makes the most sense of not only these passages but other parts of Scripture too.


Often, however, this is not the choice presented to us in Scripture. The interpretations available, none of which obviously contradict central doctrines taught in Scripture, are equally feasible explanations of a passage but say entirely different things. For example, in Genesis 4:4-5 we are told of God accepting Abel's offering but rejecting that of Cain. There are two popularly cited interpretations of this passage. The first suggests that Abel brought God of his best ('Abel brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions' Gen 4:4) while Cain merely brought some of his fruits, not his best ('Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground.' Gen 4:3). In this reading, Cain's offering was rejected because of his heart - he had not brought his best to God. The alternative interpretation argues that God, in killing two animals to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness, had shown that he required a blood sacrifice in offerings from his people. Cain, in only bringing fruit, ignored God's requirement and his sacrifice was rejected.


In this example, we see two seemingly legitimate views presented. Neither appears to obviously contradict doctrine of Scripture and both are feasible explanations of the passage. Nevertheless, the first interpretation is a straightforward reading of the passage and chimes with other parts of Scripture (Heb 11:4 states Abel offered, not an acceptable sacrifice and Cain an unacceptable one but, 'a more acceptable sacrifice.' We also see other parts of Scripture see God accept fruit offerings and we are not told the purpose of Cain and Abel's offering, etc). The alternative view infers a command by God that was never expressed in Scripture before this point. It makes God appear very unfair (insisting on blood sacrifices without ever having explicitly said this is required) and does not harmonise with other parts of Scripture where God does accept non-blood offerings.


We can see a similar issue in Judges 11:30. Jephthah makes a rash promise to God that he will sacrifice the first thing that comes out of his house to meet him which subsequently turns out to be his daughter. One view suggests that Jephthah fulfils his promise and sacrifices his daughter to God. An alternative view suggests that in Jewish culture it was a terrible thing for a young woman to never marry. When Jephthah saw his daughter come out of his house, rather than physically sacrificing her, he merely sacrificed her virginity and the fact that she will never marry. The first interpretation is a natural reading of the passage and chimes with the theme in Judges (the children of Israel falling further away from God as the book progresses - Jephthah's act being an example of how far Israel were from God). The alternative view requires an unnatural reading of the passage, insists upon an in-depth knowledge of Jewish customs and practices and does not chime with the theme of the book.


In both cases, the adoption of either view does not lead to inherent heresy. There are no central doctrinal issues necessarily affected by taking any one of the suggested interpretations above. In this sense it is not a fundamental problem for someone to take any of the aforementioned views. Perhaps, however, specifically because no central doctrine is at stake there exists an assumption that all views on the matter are legitimate or, at least, not of such great importance (that is they can be relegated to 'secondary issues'). Therefore, to adopt any view on the passage is seen as quite legitimate and, at worst, a mere point of difference. This leads some to consciously make efforts to adopt a more academically intriguing view of a passage rather than the simpler, obvious one. It is as if some preachers feel they must have some 'special insight' into a passage that the ordinary church member might miss on first reading. Ultimately, this leads to the preacher adopting a very elegant view of the passage whilst missing the point entirely.


It is clearly important for us to have intellectual preaching in our churches. This means that our preaching should reach a certain intellectual standard and should be able to stand up to scrutiny. It should not be overly simplistic and should not sidestep clear and relevant issues. However, we must guard against simply preaching the most intellectually elegant interpretation and treating it, by virtue of its academic creativity, as the most sound interpretation. Where the meaning of a passage is clear we should seek to teach it clearly. An academic insight into the Bible, and a very elegant interpretation of a passage, might make us feel as though we are working on a higher intellectual plane but this does not mean we have truly grasped the meaning of a passage. We must seek to guard against merely adopting intellectual interpretations of Scripture for the sake of ego and, instead, should seek to teach that which the Bible makes clear - even if it is a bit obvious and doesn't let us show off our intellectual capacity to understand God's word!